THE DOWNFALL OF CARTESIANISM I673-17I2

THE DOWNFALL OF CARTESIANISM I673-17I2

ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D'HISTOIRE DES IDEES INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS I I RICHARD A. WATSON THE DOWNFALL OF CARTESIANISM 1673-1712 A STUDY OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES IN LATE 17TH CENTURY CARTESIANISM Directors: P. Dibon (Nimeguen) and R. Popkin (University of California, San Diego) Editorial Board: J. Collins (St. Louis Univ.); A. Crombie (Oxford); I. Dambska (Cracow); H. de la Fontaine-Verwey (Amsterdam); H. Gadamer (Heidelberg); H. Gouhier (Paris); T. Gregory (Rome); T. E. Jessop (Hull); A. Koyre (Paris); P. O. Kristeller (Columbia Univ.); S. Lindroth (Upsal); P. Mesnard (Tours); J. Orcibal (Paris); I. S. Revah (Paris); G. Sebba (Emory Univ., Atlanta); R. Shackleton (Oxford); J. Tans (Groningen); G. Tonelli (Pise) Secretaries: P. Golliet (Nimeguen) and Elisabeth Labrousse (Paris)

RICHARD A. WATSON Assistant Professor Washington University THE DOWNFALL OF CARTESIANISM 1673-1712 A STUDY OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES IN LATE 17TH CENTURY CARTESIANISM MARTINUS NIJHOFF - THE HAGUE - 1966

ISBN-: 13 978-90-247-0187-2 e-isbn-13: 978-94-010-2963-6 001: 10.1007/978-94-010-2963-6 Copyright Ig66 by Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1966 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in a1!y form

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An earlier version of this book was written as a dissertation under the direction of Professor Richard H. Popkin, now Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. I have benefitted immensely from his knowledge of 17th century philosophy and his willingness to discuss the issues considered here. Popkin's major work, The History rif Scepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1960; revised edition, 1964) provides the necessary background for the present study. Professors Harry M. Bracken of Arizona State University and Edwin B. Allaire of the University of Iowa have read the manuscript in several stages of completion; each has made valuable comments. I wish also to thank my professors at the University of Iowa, my fellow students there (now professors) Henry G. Van Leeuwen of Hanover College and Philip D. Cummins of the University ofiowa, my former colleagues at the University of Michigan, and my wife, all of whom have assisted me in the completion of this study. Further invaluable help has been provided by the secretarial staff of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Michigan and by many librarians of the following libraries: Library of the University of Iowa, Library of the University of Michigan, Niedersachsischen Landesbibliothek, Bibliotheque Nationale, Honnold Library of the Associated Colleges at Claremont, Hoose Library of Philosophy of the University of Southern California. Permission has kindly been granted by the editors of the Revue internationale de la philosophie and the Journal of the History rif Philosoplry for the publication of material which has appeared in different form in their journals. Research funds were supplied by a University of Michigan Horace H. Rackham Graduate School Summer Faculty Research Fellowship and Research Grant. Funds for typing the manuscript were provided by the Department of Philosophy at the University of Michigan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Introduction A Characterization of a Scholastic Explanation of Perception and Knowing 5 The Development of the Distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities before Descartes 8 II. SIMON FOUCHER Life and Works 13 His Academic Scepticism and his Positive Position 18 III. LATE 17TH CENTURY CARTESIAN METAPHYSICS AND CRITICISMS OF IT A Model Late 17th Century Cartesian Metaphysical System 29 Foucher's Major Criticisms of Cartesian Metaphysics 36 IV. THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING IDEAS BETWEEN MALEBRANCHE AND FOUCHER Foucher's Reading of the First Volume of the First Edition of Malebranche's Recherche 40 Foucher's Criticisms of the Malebranchian Way of Ideas 49 Malebranche's Response to Foucher and the Failure of the Malebranchian Way of Ideas 53 V. THE ORTHODOX (NON-OCCASIONALIST) CARTESIAN WAY OF IDEAS Robert Desgabets: The Orthodox Cartesian Suggestion of Non-resembling Representative Ideas 64 Foucher's Reply to Desgabets 68 Louis de La Forge: The Orthodox Cartesian Dependence upon God 70

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS Jacque Rohault: The Denial of the Causal Likeness Principle 73 Pierre-Sylvain Regis: The Dependence upon Inexplicable Causal Relations 75 Antoine Le Grand: Ideas as Nature's Signs 81 Antoine Arnauld: Representative Perceptions 85 VI. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CARTESIAN FAILURES TO SOLVE PROBLEMS FACING CARTESIANISM Ideas as Natural Signs The Mechanical Notion of Causation External Ideas Direct Acquaintance 101 The Cartesian Dependence upon the Likeness Principles and the Ontology of Substance and Modification 101 VII. POST-CARTESIAN DEVELOPMENTS OF THE WAY OF IDEAS Monistic Solutions to Cartesian Problems 105 John Locke 107 George Berkeley I I I David Hume 1I8 VIII. LEIBNIZ AND FOUCHER The Correspondence between Leibniz and Foucher Concerning First Principles, Certain Knowledge, and the External World 123 Leibniz's New System and Foucher's Criticisms of It 128 Leibniz's Notion of Matter 133 Leibniz's Solutions to Cartesian Problems 136 IX. CONCLUSION 143 Appendix 1. A Table of the Principles of a Late 17th Century Cartesian Metaphysical System 147 Appendix II. A Schematic Outline of Foucher's Criticisms of Cartesianism 147 Bibliography 148 Index oj Names 157 89 90 95 98